Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire

[Antonio the Sixth]

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

It's a rather tough road to travel to successfully assert that the term "the Legislature," refers not to an elected body, but rather is more inclusive to also the people of the state as a whole  who in some sense hold legislative power via enacting referenda. There would be no need to refer to "the Legislature," if what was intended was that the States can draw the lines via any lawful means, they could have just said "shall be prescribed by each state ... ." The fact that the term "Legislature" is capitalized does not help either.

The Framers probably could not conceive the idea of direct popular government at the State level (something which only began during the Progressive Era), so I doubt they would have bothered to make that distinction explicit.

Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster defines "legislature" as "a group of people with the power to make or change laws". Nowhere is it specified that this group has to be elected.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

It's a rather tough road to travel to successfully assert that the term "the Legislature," refers not to an elected body, but rather is more inclusive to also the people of the state as a whole  who in some sense hold legislative power via enacting referenda. There would be no need to refer to "the Legislature," if what was intended was that the States can draw the lines via any lawful means, they could have just said "shall be prescribed by each state ... ." The fact that the term "Legislature" is capitalized does not help either.

The Framers probably could not conceive the idea of direct popular government at the State level (something which only began during the Progressive Era), so I doubt they would have bothered to make that distinction explicit.

Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster defines "legislature" as "a group of people with the power to make or change laws". Nowhere is it specified that this group has to be elected.

Nobody thinks legislature means the people as a whole, as opposed to a selected elected group, and you still have the capitalization issue.

Words have the same meaning whether or not they are capitalized.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have always believed that, when two reasonable interpretations of constitutional provisions exist, the Courts should err on the side of judicial restraint. Otherwise, the judicial power oversteps its boundaries and becomes essentially omnipotent. Of course, this has already happened countless times both in history and in recent times.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey Torie, what does the map in your signature represent? Is it median income or per-capita GDP? If so, it's pretty interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey Torie, what does the map in your signature represent? Is it median income or per-capita GDP? If so, it's pretty interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey Torie, what does the map in your signature represent? Is it median income or per-capita GDP? If so, it's pretty interesting.

I'll answer on Torie's behalf since I recognize the image: It's from an article published to The Upshot earlier this year called Where Are the Hardest Places to Live in the U.S.? (An unfortunate title, but I digress.)

The choropleth map is based on a ranking of all US counties by adult educational attainment, median household income, life expectancy, disability rate, and obesity rate - each equally weighted, IIRC.

Uh, yeah, that's a pretty weird concept.